Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a defendant who was indicted on multiple counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of public sexual indecency to a minor. The State made a plea offer that would have capped his sentence at 27 years, but his trial counsel failed to adequately communicate the offer or explain the sentencing consequences if he went to trial. The defendant only learned the full extent of his potential sentence immediately before trial and attempted to accept the plea, but the offer had expired. He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 79.5 years in prison.After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Arizona Court of Appeals, the defendant filed a timely first petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) in the Maricopa County Superior Court, raising ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims but not specifically focusing on the plea offer issue. His PCR counsel chose not to pursue that claim, and the petition was denied. Subsequent federal habeas proceedings were also unsuccessful. Years later, the defendant filed a successive PCR petition, this time specifically alleging IAC related to the plea offer. The Superior Court found the claim was not precluded and excused the untimeliness, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the claim was precluded under prior Arizona Supreme Court precedent.The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed whether the successive IAC claim was precluded and whether the untimely filing was excusable. The court held that a claim based on counsel’s failure to adequately communicate a plea offer implicates a constitutional right of such magnitude—the right to decide whether to plead guilty and waive a jury trial—that it can only be waived knowingly, voluntarily, and personally by the defendant. Therefore, the claim was not precluded. The court also held that the defendant adequately explained the delay, so the untimely filing was excused. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s rulings on preclusion and timeliness, vacated part of the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and remanded for further proceedings. View "STATE OF ARIZONA v TRAVERSO" on Justia Law

A resident of Billings, Montana, who lived across the street from a public elementary school, began carrying a shotgun outside his home, including on the sidewalk, during the summer of 2023. He did so to protect himself and his mother from a former neighbor who had repeatedly violated a protection order. Local police received several complaints about his conduct but did not charge him with any crime and told him he was complying with state law. After the resident contacted the FBI to complain about police harassment, federal authorities indicted him for possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A).The United States District Court for the District of Montana denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The defendant argued that he was exempt from the federal prohibition because, under Montana law, he was considered licensed to possess a firearm in a school zone. The district court found that Montana’s licensing scheme did not meet the federal requirements for the statutory exception, and also rejected the defendant’s Second Amendment challenge. The defendant then pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s order, directing that the indictment be dismissed. The Ninth Circuit held that the statutory exception for state-licensed individuals in the Gun-Free School Zones Act was ambiguous as applied to Montana’s licensing scheme. Given this ambiguity, and considering the rule of lenity, constitutional avoidance, and the presumption in favor of scienter as articulated in Rehaif v. United States, the court concluded that the defendant lacked fair notice that his conduct was criminal. The court did not address the Second Amendment argument. View "USA V. METCALF" on Justia Law

A business operating a strip club featuring nude dancing and alcohol sales entered into a settlement agreement with DeKalb County, Georgia, in 2001, which was later amended in 2007. The amended agreement granted the club non-conforming status, allowing it to continue its business model for fifteen years, with the possibility of renewal, and required annual licensing fees. In 2013, the City of Chamblee annexed the area containing the club and subsequently adopted ordinances restricting adult entertainment establishments, including bans on alcohol sales, stricter food sales requirements for alcohol licenses, and earlier closing times. The City initially issued alcohol licenses to the club but later denied renewal, citing failure to meet new requirements and the club’s status as an adult establishment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed some of the club’s claims for lack of standing and granted summary judgment to the City on the remaining claims. The district court found that the club lacked standing to challenge certain ordinances as it was not an alcohol licensee, and that the City’s ordinances regulating adult entertainment and alcohol sales were constitutional under the secondary-effects doctrine, applying intermediate scrutiny. The court also determined there was no valid contract between the club and the City, rejecting the Contract Clause claims, and found no equal protection violation, as the club failed to identify a similarly situated comparator.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the club lacked standing for equitable relief due to its permanent closure, but had standing for damages for a limited period. The court upheld the application of intermediate scrutiny to the ordinances, found no impairment of contract, and agreed that the club failed to establish an equal protection violation. The district court’s judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "WBY, Inc. v. City of Chamblee, Georgia" on Justia Law

A North Carolina police officer, Clarence Belton, was shot multiple times by fellow officer Heather Loveridge during the execution of a search warrant. The incident, which resulted in serious injuries to Belton and ended his law enforcement career, was captured on video and body camera footage. Belton sued Loveridge and the City of Charlotte, alleging excessive force and other claims. During the litigation, both parties moved to seal the video exhibits related to the shooting, and the district court granted these motions, placing the footage under seal.After the district court denied Loveridge’s motion for summary judgment, which was later vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a local television station, WBTV, sought to intervene in the case to unseal the video footage. Belton supported WBTV’s motion, but Loveridge opposed it, arguing that unsealing would jeopardize her right to a fair trial. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied WBTV’s motion to intervene, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal, and also denied the motion to unseal, finding no right of access under the common law or the First Amendment and concluding that Loveridge’s fair trial rights outweighed any public interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of WBTV’s motion to intervene, agreeing that the district court lacked jurisdiction at that stage. However, the appellate court treated WBTV’s appeal regarding the sealing order as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court’s order sealing the video exhibits violated the First Amendment right of access to judicial records. The court vacated the sealing order and remanded with instructions to unseal the video footage, finding that Loveridge had not met her burden to justify continued sealing. View "Gray Media Group, Inc. v. Loveridge" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Texas in 2010 for the killing of his fiancée’s thirteen-month-old daughter. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on DNA evidence and forensic testimony. Over the years, the petitioner pursued multiple avenues of postconviction relief, including direct appeal, state habeas petitions, and federal habeas petitions, all of which were denied. In 2024, he sought access to additional electronic DNA data from the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, arguing that this information was necessary to evaluate the reliability of the forensic evidence used at trial. After being denied access by the district attorney and the convicting court, he filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Texas’ postconviction relief procedures violated his due process rights by giving prosecutors unreviewable discretion to withhold evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a due process violation and that his request for an injunction resembled an improper petition for a writ of mandamus. The district court also denied his motion for discovery. The petitioner appealed and, in the interim, sought a stay of execution and authorization to file a successive habeas petition based on new evidence and scientific developments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Texas’ postconviction relief procedures do not violate due process, as they provide adequate opportunities for discovery and judicial review in habeas proceedings. The court also denied the motions for a stay of execution and for authorization to file a successive habeas petition, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the stringent requirements for such relief. The court granted leave to file a motion in excess of the word limit. View "In Re: Milam" on Justia Law

Two individuals who hold valid New York State concealed carry licenses challenged several aspects of New York’s firearm regulations after the state enacted the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The plaintiffs objected to three main provisions: the prohibition on carrying firearms in designated “sensitive locations” (specifically Times Square, the New York City subway, and the Metro-North rail system), the statewide ban on open carry of firearms, and the requirement that state concealed carry license holders obtain a separate, city-specific permit to carry a firearm in New York City. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of these provisions, arguing they violated the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the government had demonstrated a historical tradition of regulating firearms in crowded public places, supporting the sensitive locations restrictions. It also concluded that the open carry ban was consistent with historical regulations that allowed states to prohibit one form of public carry (open or concealed) as long as the other remained available. Regarding the city-specific permit, the court determined that localities have historically imposed their own firearm regulations. The court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the open carry ban, but otherwise rejected their constitutional claims on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims. The court concluded that each challenged provision—sensitive location restrictions, the open carry ban, and the city-specific permit requirement—fell within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and did not violate the Second Amendment. The denial of the preliminary injunction was therefore affirmed. View "Frey v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and first-offense driving under the influence. The defendant, who had a prior felony conviction, was found driving a borrowed vehicle that became stuck on railroad tracks. Law enforcement responded, conducted DUI tests, and allowed a passenger to search the vehicle for his keys and phone due to extreme cold. During this search, an officer assisted and discovered a firearm in the center console. The prosecution also introduced Facebook messages, purportedly sent by the defendant, to establish knowing possession of the firearm.The District Court for Lancaster County denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the firearm, finding that the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the odor of marijuana. The court also admitted the Facebook messages into evidence, overruling objections regarding foundation, hearsay, and the Confrontation Clause. On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the search was constitutional under both the consent and automobile exceptions to the warrant requirement, and that the Facebook messages were properly authenticated and admissible.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the admissibility of the firearm and Facebook messages. The court held that the officer’s search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment as a community caretaking function, not based on the passenger’s consent or the automobile exception. The court also held that user-generated social media records are not self-authenticating business records under Nebraska’s evidence rules, but found that the Facebook messages were sufficiently authenticated and admissible as statements by a party opponent. The court further found no Confrontation Clause violation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the convictions was affirmed. View "State v. Falcon" on Justia Law

A defendant was charged with possession of a stolen motor vehicle, a Class 2 felony, after allegedly taking a vehicle from a relative without permission. Following her arrest, she was released with conditions but repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled court dates, resulting in multiple arrest warrants and brief periods of detention. The State ultimately filed a petition for sanctions due to her repeated absences, but did not file a petition seeking her pretrial detention under the Pretrial Fairness Act. The defendant’s absences were sometimes explained by hospitalization, though she did not always provide documentation.The case was heard in the Circuit Court of Cook County, where the presiding judge declared the Pretrial Fairness Act unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. The judge asserted an inherent judicial authority to detain defendants indefinitely pretrial, arguing that the Act’s limitations on judicial discretion violated the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution. The judge ordered the defendant detained until trial, despite statutory provisions limiting detention to a 30-day sanction period for failure to appear and requiring a State petition for further detention. The defendant’s motion to reconsider was denied, and she sought appellate relief, including habeas corpus, mandamus, and supervisory orders.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case after transfer from the appellate court and consolidation of related proceedings. The court held that the Pretrial Fairness Act does not violate the separation of powers clause as applied to this case. It found that the circuit court lacked authority to detain the defendant indefinitely without a statutory basis and that the Act’s procedures for pretrial release and sanctions do not unduly infringe on judicial powers. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment, granted habeas corpus relief, and ordered the defendant’s immediate release. View "Stewart v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of multiple offenses, including first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, distribution of obscene material to a minor, use of a minor in a sexual performance, first-degree sexual abuse, and sixty-eight counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor. The charges arose from incidents in which the appellant, while babysitting two children, sexually abused an eight-year-old girl and, over a period of time, also abused a boy who lived with him. The investigation began after the girl disclosed the abuse to her mother, leading to police involvement, the seizure of the appellant’s cellphone, and the discovery of child pornography, including images of the boy.The Madison Circuit Court denied the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cellphone, finding that the warrantless seizure was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the delay in obtaining a search warrant was reasonable. At trial, the court admitted images of child pornography extracted from the cellphone, over the appellant’s objections regarding authentication and Confrontation Clause rights. The jury convicted the appellant on all counts, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the convictions. The Court held that raw, machine-extracted data from the Cellebrite forensic tool is not testimonial hearsay and does not implicate a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights, as such data is not a statement by a person. The Court also found that the photographs were properly authenticated, no prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and there was no double jeopardy violation in convicting the appellant for both use of a minor in a sexual performance and possession of the same image. The Court further held that the evidence was sufficient to support the rape conviction and found no cumulative error. View "BALDWIN V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

A woman was carjacked at gunpoint while filling her car at a gas station in Southeast D.C. The assailant, a stranger to her, wore a hood and brandished a gun, demanding her car keys. She focused mainly on the weapon during the brief encounter, only glancing at his face at the very end. Several hours later, police arrested Andrew Patrick driving her stolen vehicle about four miles away. Officers called the victim to the scene, where Patrick was handcuffed and positioned next to her car, flanked by police. She identified him as her assailant during two drive-by show-up procedures and later in court.The case was tried in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Patrick moved to suppress the victim’s identifications, arguing the show-up procedures were highly suggestive and unnecessary, given that he was already under arrest and a lineup or photo array could have been used. The trial court denied the motion, finding the procedures were not unduly suggestive and that the identifications were reliable, citing the victim’s opportunity to observe the assailant and her certainty.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed whether admitting the identifications violated Patrick’s due process rights. The court held that the show-up procedures were extraordinarily and unnecessarily suggestive, as Patrick was already under arrest and there was no urgency requiring a show-up. The identifications lacked independent indicia of reliability, given the victim’s limited opportunity to observe the assailant and her generic description. The court found constitutional error in admitting the identifications and reversed Patrick’s convictions for armed carjacking and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, but affirmed his other weapons-related convictions, finding those were not impacted by the identifications. View "Patrick v. United States" on Justia Law